This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Wage and Hour
Meal and Rest Period

Chelsea Medlock, an individual; Anthony Torres, an individual; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Manlin LLC; DT Fund II Group LLC, and Does 1-100, inclusive

Published: Mar. 5, 2021 | Filing Date: Nov. 16, 2018 |

Case number: 18STCV05391 Settlement –  $975,000

Court

Los Angeles County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Daniel Z. Srourian
(Srourian Law Firm)


Defendant

Robin J. Samuel
(Baker & McKenzie LLP)


Facts

Plaintiffs Chelsea Medlock and Anthony Torres were formerly employed by defendants Manlin I, LLC, DT Fund II Group, LLC, owner of multistate marijuana operator MedMen. Specifically, Medlock worked for defendants from February to June 2018 and Torres worked for defendants from February to August 2018. Plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit against defendants for wage and hour violations.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that defendants violated Labor Code Section 1194 for failing to properly compensate plaintiffs at the proper minimum wage for all the hours plaintiffs worked. Plaintiffs contended that defendant violated Labor Code Section 1198 for failing to properly compensate plaintiff for overtime pay. In addition, plaintiffs contended that defendant violated Labor Code Section 226.7 for failing to provide plaintiffs proper meal breaks and rest breaks. Further, plaintiffs contended that defendant violated Labor Code Section 226 for failing to provide plaintiffs accurate wage and hour statements. Lastly, plaintiffs contended that defendant violated Labor Code Section 202 and 202 for failing to provide plaintiffs wages upon termination of plaintiff's employment.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied plaintiffs' contentions.

Result

Defendant agreed to settle the case for $975,000.


#136692

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390